Scott Detrow

Davis now runs the Article 3 Project, a conservative legal group that is trying to install what he calls constitutionalist judges on the federal bench. One issue he cares a lot about, a powerful chief executive.

That argument was a key part of the court's ruling. But what about the other branches of government? Where do they fit in when a president could do whatever he or she wants to as a leader and not face consequences?

That argument was a key part of the court's ruling. But what about the other branches of government? Where do they fit in when a president could do whatever he or she wants to as a leader and not face consequences?

That argument was a key part of the court's ruling. But what about the other branches of government? Where do they fit in when a president could do whatever he or she wants to as a leader and not face consequences?

Coming up, a constitutional law professor walks us through why the immunity decision changed the structure of our government and why it matters. Okay, so to catch up, we have an influential group, the Federalist Society, whose members developed and advocated the idea of a powerful chief executive.

Coming up, a constitutional law professor walks us through why the immunity decision changed the structure of our government and why it matters. Okay, so to catch up, we have an influential group, the Federalist Society, whose members developed and advocated the idea of a powerful chief executive.

Coming up, a constitutional law professor walks us through why the immunity decision changed the structure of our government and why it matters. Okay, so to catch up, we have an influential group, the Federalist Society, whose members developed and advocated the idea of a powerful chief executive.

And a big part of that judicial worldview is something called the unitary executive theory, the idea the president has way more power, way more influence over the executive branch than has previously been utilized. The group helped nominate judges onto the federal bench who, over decades of rulings, have made this theory more and more of a central accepted legal argument.

And a big part of that judicial worldview is something called the unitary executive theory, the idea the president has way more power, way more influence over the executive branch than has previously been utilized. The group helped nominate judges onto the federal bench who, over decades of rulings, have made this theory more and more of a central accepted legal argument.

And a big part of that judicial worldview is something called the unitary executive theory, the idea the president has way more power, way more influence over the executive branch than has previously been utilized. The group helped nominate judges onto the federal bench who, over decades of rulings, have made this theory more and more of a central accepted legal argument.

The idea came into focus after President Trump's 2024 immunity case.

The idea came into focus after President Trump's 2024 immunity case.

The idea came into focus after President Trump's 2024 immunity case.

That's Kim Whaley. She is a constitutional law professor. And earlier in her career, she worked for independent counsel Kenneth Starr as he investigated Bill Clinton's presidency. I asked Whaley if she sees a connection between the immunity decision and President Trump's actions. Actions like closing USAID and firing thousands of federal employees.

That's Kim Whaley. She is a constitutional law professor. And earlier in her career, she worked for independent counsel Kenneth Starr as he investigated Bill Clinton's presidency. I asked Whaley if she sees a connection between the immunity decision and President Trump's actions. Actions like closing USAID and firing thousands of federal employees.

That's Kim Whaley. She is a constitutional law professor. And earlier in her career, she worked for independent counsel Kenneth Starr as he investigated Bill Clinton's presidency. I asked Whaley if she sees a connection between the immunity decision and President Trump's actions. Actions like closing USAID and firing thousands of federal employees.

Right now, there are a number of lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump's ability to fire federal employees, cases that may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. And Whaley has a prediction.

Right now, there are a number of lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump's ability to fire federal employees, cases that may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. And Whaley has a prediction.

Right now, there are a number of lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump's ability to fire federal employees, cases that may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. And Whaley has a prediction.

But early on, some of the administration's moves have been successfully challenged, at least initially. Already five justices ruled that the Trump administration must pay $2 billion to USAID contractors for work they've already completed.